Dan, you de-crediblize your efforts as a hobbiest historian by being unwilling to reasonably acknowledge your limitations in addressing matters the type of which you not only haven't experienced, but disbelieve occur as others have stated. As a hobbiest [sic] historian, myself, I understand my limitations in this area since I haven't personally experienced visions.

Does this mean that you and I have no basis at all to argue the matter? No. What it means is that you and I can only disagree to a limited point, and this non-definitively, and that you and I ought to give deference to those who have experienced such things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That Wade considers himself a historian, "hobbiest" or otherwise, and on the same grounds as Dan Vogel, is absolutely hilarious.

This is in a thread about the Book of Mormon witnesses, where mfbukowski suggests that Dan Vogel's critique of the Book of Mormon witness accounts is analogous to dismissing people claiming to have seen the rings of Saturn as a "group hallucination." When it is pointed out that the rings of Saturn are an illusion, not a hallucination, the philosopher-poet responds thusly:

Quote:

As you often do, you miss the point, or perhaps do so deliberately. I doubt you are really that obtuse.

Now you are grasping at straws, taking on faith the "not impossible" possibility that it still was a hallucination. You have more faith than I do!

The rings of Saturn an illusion? Of course they were not nor are they now.

The entire point is that when the first person, presumably Galileo, saw them, it was a totally subjective, unexplained phenomenon. He might have told hundreds of people what he saw and they would call it an "hallucination" or burned him at the stake for being a witch, or who knows what.

When another person, then another, saw the rings and they all agreed, had you been there, you might have said it was "mass hysteria" which explains nothing.

As more and more people made the same observation and published the results, corroborating the evidence, the rings stopped being a "subjective" report by a few, a hallucination or mass hysteria, and became "objective" and was ordained magically to the office of "scientific fact"

The entire point is that all observations which later become "scientific fact" start out as completely subjective for the first person who makes them. The more they are replicated the more "objective" they become.

It is totally erroneous to conclude that every observation made which is "subjective" is therefore "false" merely because it is subjective and personal.

Were that true, your doctor would have no reason to believe you when you entered the ER with chest pains.

Sorry, but the rings of Saturn are in fact an illusion. There are a bunch of rocks floating around Saturn. From a vast distance, these appear to be rings.

Also, the difference is that we can go get a telescope and see the rings of Saturn for ourselves. We cannot do that with the golden plates. Like other defenders of the faith, mfbukowski is confusing a metaphysical claim with a factual claim (that there was an ancient Nephite civilization that produced the Book of Mormon).

So, going with mfbukowski's misplaced metaphor, which is more likely to be the Mormon suggestion of how one determines whether there appear to be rings around Saturn?

(a) "Go get a telescope and look for yourself."

(b) "Pray about it, and take my word for it that your subjective emotional state means what I tell you it means."

_________________“[The] Parmageddon [has] pierogi, kraut, and sharp cheddar, and then it goes into the meltification machine — it’s outta bounds and so much more than a grilled cheese sandwich.”

Sorry, but the rings of Saturn are in fact an illusion. There are a bunch of rocks floating around Saturn. From a vast distance, these appear to be rings.

Also, the difference is that we can go get a telescope and see the rings of Saturn for ourselves. We cannot do that with the golden plates. Like other defenders of the faith, mfbukowski is confusing a metaphysical claim with a factual claim (that there was an ancient Nephite civilization that produced the Book of Mormon).

So, going with mfbukowski's misplaced metaphor, which is more likely to be the Mormon suggestion of how one determines whether there appear to be rings around Saturn?

(a) "Go get a telescope and look for yourself."

(b) "Pray about it, and take my word for it that your subjective emotional state means what I tell you it means."

Are you flippin' kidding me? "The rings of Saturn are actually an illusion" because they are made of rocks?

You actually think I didn't know they were made of rocks? They are rocks that form a "ring"!

And then you yourself say the same thing 2 seconds later:

Quote:

Also, the difference is that we can go get a telescope and see the rings of Saturn for ourselves.

You mean the "ILLUSION" of the rings? Give me a break!

Did you even remotely understand the point of the post - the difference between subjective and objective observations and how subjective observations BECOME objective by replicated observations?

Sorry, but the rings of Saturn are in fact an illusion. There are a bunch of rocks floating around Saturn. From a vast distance, these appear to be rings.

Also, the difference is that we can go get a telescope and see the rings of Saturn for ourselves. We cannot do that with the golden plates. Like other defenders of the faith, mfbukowski is confusing a metaphysical claim with a factual claim (that there was an ancient Nephite civilization that produced the Book of Mormon).

So, going with mfbukowski's misplaced metaphor, which is more likely to be the Mormon suggestion of how one determines whether there appear to be rings around Saturn?

(a) "Go get a telescope and look for yourself."

(b) "Pray about it, and take my word for it that your subjective emotional state means what I tell you it means."

Are you flippin' kidding me? "The rings of Saturn are actually an illusion" because they are made of rocks?

You actually think I didn't know they were made of rocks? They are rocks that form a "ring"!

I'm sorry, mfbukowski, but the rings of Saturn are not an illusion because they are made of rocks. That is a non-sequitur, and I didn't say it. They are an illusion because of optical effects.

Quote:

And then you yourself say the same thing 2 seconds later:

Quote:

Also, the difference is that we can go get a telescope and see the rings of Saturn for ourselves.

You mean the "ILLUSION" of the rings? Give me a break!

Yes, I do indeed mean the illusion of the rings. Up close, it looks like this:

From far away, it looks like this:

You agree that a third party can objectively see that, right? (People looking at the board: can you see that picture?) It's an illusion. Not a hallucination. If it's a hallucination, only you can see it.

Quote:

Did you even remotely understand the point of the post - the difference between subjective and objective observations and how subjective observations BECOME objective by replicated observations?

I guess not. Take a science course

Once again, I'm sorry, mfbukowksi, but if a subjective thing can be observed, it is by definition not subjective. A thing that can be observed by someone else is objective.

If I subjectively think I see a talking dinosaur in my house, but nobody else can see it, repeating this subjective observation does not make the talking dinosaur become objective. It just means I'm schizophrenic. That's a thing I learned in a science course. It was called "Abnormal Psychology."

If other people can also see this talking dinosaur, we're not talking about a subjective experience anymore.

Or was your point that if you feel really good about the Church and you repeat this subjective observation enough times, it will make a Nephite civilization appear that archaeologists can see?

_________________“[The] Parmageddon [has] pierogi, kraut, and sharp cheddar, and then it goes into the meltification machine — it’s outta bounds and so much more than a grilled cheese sandwich.”

1.an act or instance of discriminating.2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.4.Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

Quote:

For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?

Yes, because you have treated him differently than your daughter.

Quote:

Most people would suggest that I have not, as "discrimination" is commonly understood.

Then most people need to get a dictionary.

Quote:

The assumption that either the Ban or not allowing my son to use the car was "discrimination" is speculative. It is inferred, rather than explicitly stated.

No, it is observed by one's explicit actions.

Quote:

My son has no "right" to use the family car. It is a privelege that I can bestow or withhold entirely at my discretion- and for any reason.

That is irrelevant. Once you choose to bestow things on people, withholding those things because of something other than individual merit is discrimination.

Quote:

It is not your place (or anyone elses) to criticize me on who, how, or when I delegate the use of the family vehicle.

You have invited that criticism, because you are asking people to determine whether what you are doing is discrimination.

Quote:

It is not your place to pass judgement on my reasons.

You invited everyone to pass judgment on your reasons. "For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?"

Quote:

The same logic applies to the Priesthood Ban.

The same logic applies to the Church in general. Since it is not our place to pass judgment on it, we cannot determine whether the Church is true. "The Church is true" is a judgment. But once the Church invites the world to evaluate its truth claims, then it becomes our place to pass judgment.

Quote:

No one now alive or dead (save Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) have any right to the Priesthood.

Not even them. They had to earn it. But now we're getting into Mormonism ultimately being non-theistic.

Quote:

That is a privilege that is theirs to bestow or withold as they see fit- for any reason or for no reason at all.

Because we would naturally expect a loving, wise, omnipotent God to act arbitrarily.

Quote:

Unless and until it is demonstrated that the Priesthood Ban was not divinely sanctioned, none of us have any right to quibble over the reasoning behind the Ban.

That's how burden of proof works, you know!

Quote:

It is not our place to tell God to whom he "must" delegate his authority and under what conditions.

Nor is it our place to wonder why God gave us just enough intelligence and just enough of a conscience to make his actions look arbitrary and racist to a reasonable observer.

Quote:

Second, I would stipulate that (assuming for the sake of argument) that I had discriminated against my son- can one assume that I did so on the basis of his gender?

You're only talking about two people, so that's not a big enough sample size. You might just like your daughter better as an individual. Now if you had 4 or 5 daughters, and they all got the car, and a couple of sons, and they did not, and all other things are equal, then yes, it's a fair inference that you're discriminating against the boys because of their sex.

It's also possible that you are in fact discriminating based on sex, but we need more information to infer that when there are only two kids involved.

Quote:

Can one assume that I did so on the basis of his race?

Your kids are presumably the same race as you are---unless they reject the gospel, in which case they will be turned into American Indians. But it might be on the basis of race if your kids each have different mothers who are different races from each other. We still need a bigger sample size, though.

Quote:

Can one assume that his conduct is "less valiant" than that of his sister?

Actually yes, that would be a reasonable assumption. Lots of parents ground their kids (who are old enough to drive) from using the car when they get in trouble.

Did you happen to have any of your paid spokesmen get up in front of a large audience and suggest that that this was the reason? You know, what with your analogy and all?

Quote:

Can one assume that I did so because of his age?

Maybe. There are laws that discriminate about driving on the basis of age. Not all discrimination is invalid. The issue is whether there is a legitimate, reasonable basis to discriminate.

Like, "because you're black," for example.

Quote:

All of these speculations about my reasoning are just that- speculation.

That's true. But if you have paid spokesmen talk in front of people and send out official letters and write books for 150 years or so telling the reasons why your son couldn't have the car, then it isn't speculation anymore.

_________________“[The] Parmageddon [has] pierogi, kraut, and sharp cheddar, and then it goes into the meltification machine — it’s outta bounds and so much more than a grilled cheese sandwich.”

Once again, I'm sorry, mfbukowksi, but if a subjective thing can be observed, it is by definition not subjective. A thing that can be observed by someone else is objective.

Things are not "objective", observations are, but that is what I said.

Get a life

Please demonstrate how the various evidences for the rings of rocks around Saturn are comparable to 19th century claims about gold plates, or any other unverifiable claims made from 19th mystics, for that matter.

1.an act or instance of discriminating.2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.4.Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

Quote:

For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?

Yes, because you have treated him differently than your daughter.

Quote:

Most people would suggest that I have not, as "discrimination" is commonly understood.

Then most people need to get a dictionary.

Quote:

The assumption that either the Ban or not allowing my son to use the car was "discrimination" is speculative. It is inferred, rather than explicitly stated.

No, it is observed by one's explicit actions.

Quote:

My son has no "right" to use the family car. It is a privelege that I can bestow or withhold entirely at my discretion- and for any reason.

That is irrelevant. Once you choose to bestow things on people, withholding those things because of something other than individual merit is discrimination.

Quote:

It is not your place (or anyone elses) to criticize me on who, how, or when I delegate the use of the family vehicle.

You have invited that criticism, because you are asking people to determine whether what you are doing is discrimination.

Quote:

It is not your place to pass judgement on my reasons.

You invited everyone to pass judgment on your reasons. "For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?"

Quote:

The same logic applies to the Priesthood Ban.

The same logic applies to the Church in general. Since it is not our place to pass judgment on it, we cannot determine whether the Church is true. "The Church is true" is a judgment. But once the Church invites the world to evaluate its truth claims, then it becomes our place to pass judgment.

Quote:

No one now alive or dead (save Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) have any right to the Priesthood.

Not even them. They had to earn it. But now we're getting into Mormonism ultimately being non-theistic.

Quote:

That is a privilege that is theirs to bestow or withold as they see fit- for any reason or for no reason at all.

Because we would naturally expect a loving, wise, omnipotent God to act arbitrarily.

Quote:

Unless and until it is demonstrated that the Priesthood Ban was not divinely sanctioned, none of us have any right to quibble over the reasoning behind the Ban.

That's how burden of proof works, you know!

Quote:

It is not our place to tell God to whom he "must" delegate his authority and under what conditions.

Nor is it our place to wonder why God gave us just enough intelligence and just enough of a conscience to make his actions look arbitrary and racist to a reasonable observer.

Quote:

Second, I would stipulate that (assuming for the sake of argument) that I had discriminated against my son- can one assume that I did so on the basis of his gender?

You're only talking about two people, so that's not a big enough sample size. You might just like your daughter better as an individual. Now if you had 4 or 5 daughters, and they all got the car, and a couple of sons, and they did not, and all other things are equal, then yes, it's a fair inference that you're discriminating against the boys because of their sex.

It's also possible that you are in fact discriminating based on sex, but we need more information to infer that when there are only two kids involved.

Quote:

Can one assume that I did so on the basis of his race?

Your kids are presumably the same race as you are---unless they reject the gospel, in which case they will be turned into American Indians. But it might be on the basis of race if your kids each have different mothers who are different races from each other. We still need a bigger sample size, though.

Quote:

Can one assume that his conduct is "less valiant" than that of his sister?

Actually yes, that would be a reasonable assumption. Lots of parents ground their kids (who are old enough to drive) from using the car when they get in trouble.

Did you happen to have any of your paid spokesmen get up in front of a large audience and suggest that that this was the reason? You know, what with your analogy and all?

Quote:

Can one assume that I did so because of his age?

Maybe. There are laws that discriminate about driving on the basis of age. Not all discrimination is invalid. The issue is whether there is a legitimate, reasonable basis to discriminate.

Like, "because you're black," for example.

Quote:

All of these speculations about my reasoning are just that- speculation.

That's true. But if you have paid spokesmen talk in front of people and send out official letters and write books for 150 years or so telling the reasons why your son couldn't have the car, then it isn't speculation anymore.

Quoted for perfection.

_________________not all facts are even facts~ldsfaqsAnd if pigs flew we wouldn't usually eat pork.~ldsfaqs

~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

adjective4.being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

So, it objectively appears that the word "objective" applies to things. But are "observations" objective, or are they subjective?

subjective1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.5.relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Huh. Objectively, mfbukowski's subjective definitions are backwards.

Thank you, though, for the suggestion that I get a life. That seems like very pragmatic advice.

_________________“[The] Parmageddon [has] pierogi, kraut, and sharp cheddar, and then it goes into the meltification machine — it’s outta bounds and so much more than a grilled cheese sandwich.”

Racial discrimination has a definition. As long as we are part of the world we are going to have to live with the same definition everyone else uses. To see people trying to redefine it simply to exclude the ban from meeting the definition everyone else uses is bizarre.

Racial discrimination has a definition. As long as we are part of the world we are going to have to live with the same definition everyone else uses. To see people trying to redefine it simply to exclude the ban from meeting the definition everyone else uses is bizarre.

I read that too. I'm really impressed with some of the stuff she's written lately.

Please demonstrate how the various evidences for the rings of rocks around Saturn are comparable to 19th century claims about gold plates, or any other unverifiable claims made from 19th mystics, for that matter.

Please demonstrate how the various evidences for the rings of rocks around Saturn are comparable to 19th century claims about gold plates, or any other unverifiable claims made from 19th mystics, for that matter.

Never said they were.

You said Gallileo's experience seeing the rings was "a totally subjective, unexplained phenomenon" in your defense of the witnesses' experiences. Why make the comparison if you don't think they're comparable?

adjective4.being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

So, it objectively appears that the word "objective" applies to things. But are "observations" objective, or are they subjective?

subjective1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.5.relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Huh. Objectively, mfbukowski's subjective definitions are backwards.

Thank you, though, for the suggestion that I get a life. That seems like very pragmatic advice.

I must say your brilliance is unsurpassed!

All the philosophers who have debated this over the years should have just come to you or looked it up in the dictionary!!